But The Fishing Was So Good!

[Yankee Troller]

I'm sure I'll get roasted again for my concerns, but the stats just keep getting worse. All I'm asking for at this point is for someone "in charge" to care enough to study why. Isn't that a part of what biologist do? The data is right here, and it's also on the North shore derby leaderboard. Maybe there is nothing we can do about it. Maybe there is? This whole Great Lakes fishery was an experiment, and look what it turned into. Can we try something for Christ sakes?

 

[GAMBLER]

In the past, they didn't want to bring in new genetics because they didn't want to mess with the current strain that has adapted to naturally reproducing in Lake Ontario.  They could do Triploid salmon.  They are sterile so they wouldn't mess with the genetics.  Stock a percentage of the kings stocked as triploids.  We could have numbers of kings AND some giants lingering around.  We were told for years that the salmon size was down due to the bait biomass being smaller.  The last couple of years, the biomass has been way up.  By the logic of what we have been told for years, we should have giant kings again.  I'm with you 100%.  Something needs to be done.  

[BRsnow]

I agree, I loved the glory days and wish they could bring it back. When I can drive to South Dakota and catch the same size kings as you catch in Lake Ontario there has to be a problem:-)

[luckystrike]

Just guessing...but maybe cormorants reducing bait fish populations and way more fisherman days is part of the reason why there is steady downward trend in the heaviest salmon caught. I think the same general trend is happening on the north shore.       I was looking on the Lake Ontario Management Unit website and they have links to annual reports from 1991 to 2024 and a phone number and email contact info.   GLFC -- Lake Ontario Committee  The fisheries Biologists and Technicians should have some idea what is happening.    Personal observation...Fishing was still good on the north shore this summer, my biggest was 27 lbs but I do remember the glory days of catching 30 to 33 lb salmon  back around 1997 to 2002.

[BRsnow]

49 minutes ago, luckystrike said:

Just guessing...but maybe cormorants reducing bait fish populations and way more fisherman days is part of the reason why there is steady downward trend in the heaviest salmon caught. I think the same general trend is happening on the north shore.       I was looking on the Lake Ontario Management Unit website and they have links to annual reports from 1991 to 2024 and a phone number and email contact info.   GLFC -- Lake Ontario Committee  The fisheries Biologists and Technicians should have some idea what is happening.    Personal observation...Fishing was still good on the north shore this summer, my biggest was 27 lbs but I do remember the glory days of catching 30 to 33 lb salmon  back around 1997 to 2002.

I would be amazed if there are more fishing days targeting salmon than back in the day. It used to be bumper to bumper.

[chinook35]

14 hours ago, BRsnow said:

I would be amazed if there are more fishing days targeting salmon than back in the day. It used to be bumper to bumper.

 

[chinook35]

The 80’s , 90’s and early 2000’s we tried to count the number of boats in Mexico bay before dawn from our camp on Sandy Pond. The nav lights were in the 100’s 

there were far more fisherpeople on the water back then 

the line for the launch at Mexico Point was nearly back to Rt 104 most mornings and I got turned away because the parking lot was full

i don’t believe the cormorants are a serious threat to mature alewives because of the depth they usually haunt. Spring , when they are spawning may be a different story 

the kings ( at least many of them ) are returning to spawn early ( not 3 and 4 years)  that has got to have a lot to do with the size 

New genetics from pacific salmon are needed to get the size back 

[GAMBLER]

21 hours ago, luckystrike said:

Just guessing...but maybe cormorants reducing bait fish populations and way more fisherman days is part of the reason why there is steady downward trend in the heaviest salmon caught. I think the same general trend is happening on the north shore.       I was looking on the Lake Ontario Management Unit website and they have links to annual reports from 1991 to 2024 and a phone number and email contact info.   GLFC -- Lake Ontario Committee  The fisheries Biologists and Technicians should have some idea what is happening.    Personal observation...Fishing was still good on the north shore this summer, my biggest was 27 lbs but I do remember the glory days of catching 30 to 33 lb salmon  back around 1997 to 2002.

The baitfish population has been way higher the past couple of years compared to 10-15 years ago.  Fish were bigger back then with less bait.

[luckystrike]

 From the Great lakes sport fishing council, 2024 Special Report for Lake Ontario. (Report attached & dated April 2025 ) 

While Lake Ontario Alewife biomass has declined since the early 

1990s, survey data from other Great Lakes indicates Lake 

Ontario supports the greatest Alewife biomass. 

Chinook Salmon fishing was outstanding in 2024 with mean catch rates ranking the 2nd highest on record in 39 years 

of conducting the survey. From April-July, Chinook catch rates were nearly double the 10-year average in all four lake 

management areas. Although Chinook fishing cooled off in August and September due to unstable temperature and windy lake conditions, this fishing season will be recorded as one of 

the all-time best. 

  Salmon size has been trending lower recently, likely due to the high numbers of salmon and trout in the lake, 

however, mean weight of age-3 Chinook in August was still 

19.2 lbs. with some fish weighing over 30 lbs. A trophy 37 lb Chinook

was caught in June.

Lake-Ontario-Report.pdf

[BRsnow]

1 minute ago, luckystrike said:

 From the Great lakes sport fishing council, 2024 Special Report for Lake Ontario. (Report attached & dated April 2025 ) 

While Lake Ontario Alewife biomass has declined since the early 

1990s, survey data from other Great Lakes indicates Lake 

Ontario supports the greatest Alewife biomass. 

Chinook Salmon fishing was outstanding in 2024 with mean catch rates ranking the 2nd highest on record in 39 years 

of conducting the survey. From April-July, Chinook catch rates were nearly double the 10-year average in all four lake 

management areas. Although Chinook fishing cooled off in August and September due to unstable temperature and windy lake conditions, this fishing season will be recorded as one of 

the all-time best. 

  Salmon size has been trending lower recently, likely due to the high numbers of salmon and trout in the lake, 

however, mean weight of age-3 Chinook in August was still 

19.2 lbs. with some fish weighing over 30 lbs. A trophy 37 lb Chinook

was caught in June.

Lake-Ontario-Report.pdf 2.31 MB · 0 downloads

We used to catch many mid 30lbers per trip. Maybe not as many fish total, but it was amazing. We caught a 42lb that was not even top 10 for that week. Seems there is a disagreement on is less but bigger better or more but smaller.

[Gator]

I remember the '80s too. We were chartering at that point as I was growing up down in Bath, but the size of the kings was amazing. Unfortunately, the history of nearly every fishery where a new species is established in a prime environment suggests that this type of size is unsustainable. I don't believe that there is any possibility of our returning to those glory days.

 

However, that isn't to say that we can't balance size and numbers with a measured approach. I like Brian's idea of stocking some triploid fish - at least it would allow us to distinguish between the role of genetics versus environment on king size. The triploid population would need to be genetically distinct, optimally a throwback to the original strain, and since they're sterile, they wouldn't interfere with our naturalized strain. That having been said, there's a fair amount of data indicating that triploid fish are generally inferior to diploids, but it's worth a try.

 

I suspect LO fishermen would gladly help to survey their catch and provide data if it meant even a remote possibility for 40 lb salmon again. At the very least, it would look like DEC was listening to the stakeholders...

[fisherdude]

Instead of artificial intelligence killing off mankind by the end of the decade maybe artificial intelligence can fix the size of the fish. It's a new world 

[RH93]

Rumor has it, Killian's record fish was a sterile fish.

[luckystrike]

2 hours ago, RH93 said:

Rumor has it, Killian's record fish was a sterile fish.

 

Google search went to Facebook.

Could be that it was sterile...It was still silver...one theory is it stayed in the lake for an extra year (s) to become a giant...WOW!   47 lbs 13 oz

[BRsnow]

Our 42lber was turning colors when we caught it late July. It certainly wasn't considered very big as all the fish in the standings were over 40lbs. They did stock "super salmon" in Lake Michigan in the late 80's. We do think we lost one at boat after a very long battle and it looks very big as it surfaced next to the boat. 

[rolmops]

On 9/19/2026 at 1:24 PM, chinook35 said:

The 80’s , 90’s and early 2000’s we tried to count the number of boats in Mexico bay before dawn from our camp on Sandy Pond. The nav lights were in the 100’s 

there were far more fisherpeople on the water back then 

the line for the launch at Mexico Point was nearly back to Rt 104 most mornings and I got turned away because the parking lot was full

i don’t believe the cormorants are a serious threat to mature alewives because of the depth they usually haunt. Spring , when they are spawning may be a different story 

the kings ( at least many of them ) are returning to spawn early ( not 3 and 4 years)  that has got to have a lot to do with the size 

New genetics from pacific salmon are needed to get the size back 

I do not miss combat fishing. Specially spring brown trout close to shore. It came to the point where I chose to stay home.

[Morgan-E]

I wrote this some years ago concerning the size of the chinook salmon and have spoken with some of the DEC and Great Lakes personnel about the genetics and the slide in the size of the salmon. I have edited a few things to bring it up to date.  Not looking for a back and forth, just my thoughts based on this study, biology, and observations.

 

From the beginning of the fishery, the hatchery, directed by outside biologists, was instructed to take the salmon as they entered the hatchery and that they would be representative of the population entering the river.  Since a discussion with them last year I think that they see and understand that this has been a false premise since the larger fish have been removed by anglers at a much higher rate than the smaller fish entering the river and this has skewed the egg take in favor of smaller fish for decades now ( If 100 fish enter the river and 9 of the top ten are harvested before spawning, but the ten smallest fish are able to spawn over the course of decades, the genetics are artificially selected to favor smaller fish).

 

This is just for thought and I do not claim to know for sure or have access to data to fully support or refute what is written below.  It will take a little bit of time to read and digest.

Something to chew on.

Also note that the DEC biologists have read this and are looking at data relative to the thoughts below - thank you to them.

 

The Scientific Answer / Cause of Reduced Chinook Size in Lake Ontario?

 

Background:

 

                A study was concluded and published by the University of Helsinki and published in Sustainability News, “Salmon are Shrinking and it Shows in Their Genes” on November 14, 2018.  This study was conducted on Atlantic salmon using 40 years of genetic material and concluded that the “gene version that tells salmon to mature at a later age and thus grow bigger is becoming less common, while the version that urges them to hurry up and get on with it is getting more prevalent.” Two alleles have been identified and the one that urges the salmon to mature earlier has become overwhelmingly dominant in the population while the allele that has been dominant in the past has become increasingly scarce.

                The theory behind the age and size shift is “that the salmon today are more likely to die during their time at sea either because of fishing or other reasons, and would thus benefit from returning to the rivers to spawn sooner rather then later”.

        A now prominent fish geneticist was asked the question about genetics and the relationship to large and small fish and he said in summary "you need to breed large fish to make large fish", "small fish don't make large fish"

Genetic Ties:

 

                Many times other factors are thought to influence the size of fish and may in fact do so over a very short period of time such as temperature, hormones determined by photo period, food availability, illness, competition, and others.  However, in Lake Ontario there has been a noticeable decline in size using the derbies and individual observations over the past three decades.  It was probably occurring prior to this but there were still enough large fish to make it unnoticeable.  If it is indeed linked to genetics as it has been shown to be in Atlantic salmon it is an evolutionary change and not an environmental phenomena, meaning it is here long term and would take a shift in the allele (gene version) frequency to shift the trend.

Lake Ontario Trends:

 

                The Lake Ontario salmon have been getting smaller over the decades but not due to bait fish availability.  If it was tied to baitfish availability the fish would resemble the emaciated salmon of Huron and Michigan, but the “plumpness” of the salmon has remained relatively constant since it was first used as an indicator of fish health.  This has remained the same while the overall size of the average fish has declined in the lake and the upper size expectancy has continued to decline.  In the 1980’s people would expect to catch salmon in the upper 30’s and hope to catch one over 40lbs.  This declined to expecting to catch fish over 30 and hoping to catch one in the upper 30’s in the 90’s.  This has continued to decline to the present day where people expect to catch salmon in the lower 20’s and are hopeful to get one around the 30lb mark.

                At the hatchery the age structure of the fish has also shifted over the years and the average size has shifted down but not by as much as shown in the creel census, angler observations, and the lake-wide derbies.  The explanation for this may be due to the constant fishing pressure on the Salmon River since the inception of the fishery.  This will be discussed further in the artificial selection and adaptive value of the smaller / earlier maturing allele phenotype. 

On the Canadian side they have also seen a shift in the salmon size, but it has been a slower decline than on the U.S. side, but seems to have caught up to, or shows no real significant difference in reported observations.  This may be tied to the lower tributary fishing pressure their fish have experienced when compared to the Salmon River.  Again, this will be discussed later.

                In more recent history there have been greater highs and lows in the fishery that would suggest a single year determination in terms of year class rather than a subtle shift if multiple year classes were available to compensate for a single age class failure.

Selecting agents giving adaptive value to maturing earlier rather than later:

 

                Lake-wide angling pressure will select against the salmon that are in the system longer by giving anglers an extra year or two to catch and remove the fish prior to spawning.  Early in the fishery anglers knew that fish of like size tended to school together so they would leave the “smaller 20lb fish” in search of schools of larger fish.  Any fish in the 80’s and early 90’s under 20lbs was considered small.  However, these small fish that were not targeted or in many cases released in pursuit of larger salmon to fill the creel limit were the two year old fish.  In the first decades of the fishery the larger fish were genetically selected against and the smaller fish were genetically selected for, increasing the frequency of the smaller, early maturing salmon.  This was and is true for the entire lake regardless of where the salmon was spawned and or stocked.

                Tributary angling pressure has always selected for the largest of the salmon on the U.S. side.  Early in the fishery to the present the largest most visible salmon have had a skewed amount of fishing pressure when compared to the less visible and less desired smaller salmon.  Again, the largest are targeted because it is human nature to want the largest fish to fill the creel limit for a number of reasons.  This greatly reduces the percentage of the 4 and 3 year olds successfully spawning by natural means or making it into the hatchery system.  Within the hatchery there is a much smaller percentage of large fish compared to the number in the lake and that enter the mouth of the Salmon River.  This may also be an explanation of why anglers accuse the DEC of spawning only the “small” fish (that is mostly what has and continues to be available within the spawn house). 

                The slower fall in size on the Canadian side may be due to less pressure to no pressure on the tributaries compared to the U.S. side.  The Canadian fish are still exposed to the same lake pressures which have had them decline in size and age structure, but without the tributary pressure the allele shift has taken longer and they have not had the extreme shift in fishing quality until recent years that the U.S. side has experienced.  The natural wandering (around 10% from natal waters) would also allow the influx of the early maturing allele into waters where the late to mature fish may have otherwise maintained a genetically isolated population (namely in the clean tributaries of Canada where there has been reports of natural reproduction occurring for quite some time).

Chinook compared to Atlantic salmon:

 

                Atlantic salmon may have actually taken longer to get to the point where the salmon are maturing early compared to the Chinooks.  Since Atlantics spawn multiple times and can live up to seven years on average the “older” alleles should persist longer when compared to a fish that spawns only once.  An Atlantic that manages to have good behavior and high fitness that happens to mature at a later time could spawn multiple times with fish that may have spawned for the first time at age two.  This would allow the alleles to persist in a higher frequency than those of chinooks where the fish dies after spawning and has only a two, three, or four year old spawning allele. 

                The shorter life cycle of the chinook compared to the Atlantic salmon makes it a better candidate for evolution than the slightly longer lived and slower to mature Atlantic salmon.  Those species with shorter life cycles and higher reproductive potential are able to evolve more quickly to changes in the environment or selecting agents.

                Additionally the fishing pressure on the lake is far more concentrated for the entire life of the chinook in the lake system compared to the open ocean environment of the Atlantic salmon.  This is based on the simple size of the area available to forage and disperse and with the new technologies and information sharing on the internet of fish location within the lake system.  If the fishing pressure of the modern day has indeed influenced the genetic shift of the Atlantic salmon, then the chinook salmon should respond in a similar and more rapid shift due to the more acute fishing pressure experienced.

Chinook compared to coho salmon:

 

                Coho salmon spawn at age two consistently.  The size of the coho has not varied much from their introduction to Lake Ontario on a decade to decade average basis.  A big coho in the 80’s was in the teens and today a big coho is still in the teens with the average mature fish being in the upper single digits to lower double digits.  The very large infrequent coho of the past may have been undocumented hybrids. Some very large verified hybrids are still being taken out of the lake on occasion.  Coho have not had the heavy selecting pressures placed on them that the chinook have been exposed to.  They are seldom targeted in the lake (mostly an incidental catch) and are overlooked in the river when swimming amongst chinooks.  This may be why there has not been any “need” to change as a species.

Chinook compared to brown trout:

 

                Brown trout have remained relatively consistent over the decades with expected above and below averages in numbers and size.  The brood stock has not changed in decades and that has lead to survivability issues and genetic health related problems, but those are not associated with human pressures on the lake or tributaries.  The browns that successfully spawn may have changed behaviors as well due to fishing pressure in the lake and especially in the tributaries.  This may be why tributary anglers are not seeing the brown trout that they have in the past (they too have changed their behavior and regardless of regulations or stocking numbers they may not return to the tributaries the way they did in the past in number or duration).  Fishing success on the lake is tied to weather conditions more than anything in the Spring. The number of brown trout is highly influenced by predation at stocking, health of the trout including their size at stocking, and in some parts of the state poaching of brown trout in small tributaries has been reported.

***This has recently changed with the introduction of the Rome-iskany strain that has more wild behavior that has allowed high survivability as we have seen with outstanding numbers of the cookie cutter size brown trout from two distinct age classes now.***** We will not know their size potential for a couple more years.

Chinook of today compared to the chinook of the past:

 

                The chinooks of Lake Ontario have already been identified as likely being a new subspecies through evolution of the species in terms of behavior compared to the original population from which they came.  The fish do not stage as they did back in the 70’s through the mid 90’s in front of the river mouth.  Instead their behavior is so erratic that they cannot fit any known models used to predict salmon migrations and staging behavior.  Once in the tributaries they no longer spend a lot of time pool hopping as they used to, but instead swim to the hatchery or upper parts of the river and its tributaries in quick fashion.  The chinooks used to be in the rivers in high numbers around Labor Day weekend, but these fish would have been exposed to higher and longer fishing pressure while waiting for optimal spawning temperatures a month away (their alleles have too been likely removed).  Instead there is a massive run that occurs later in September and closer to the time of which they are able to successfully spawn.  In the lake, the salmon move in and out of Mexico Bay and have staged in water as deep as six hundred feet in recent years off of Oswego which was unheard of or unknown of in the past.

                The chinooks are spawning at an earlier / smaller size than they did in the past only by percentage.  It is likely that there were some that did in the beginning, but no one noticed or cared because they made up such a small percent of the total population.  It is also likely that some behaved as erratically as those of today, but again they represented a very small percent of the population.  In both of these instances their relatives that behaved in a traditional and known way were exposed to far greater pressure and had a greater likelihood of being removed prior to spawning.

What does age two chinooks mean to the future of the fishery:

                Smaller fish similar to what we have been catching over the past two years will become the new normal.  There is no reason for the chinooks to be selected to go back to the larger, older size class in any large percentage without artificial selection at the hatchery, a trophy class limit on anglers, reduced pressure on the tributaries of spawning fish, or new genetics being introduced from their ocean cousins.

                Greater uncertainty of the fishery from year to year will occur because the majority of the fish available and targeted as mature salmon will be represented by a single year class.  If the lake trout population goes up so does the predation of the salmon stocked or that are wildly produced and the number of available salmon will decrease.  Also, natural spawn becomes that much more important as the stocking numbers at the hatchery have decreased.  If there is a poor natural reproduction year class the fishing will be directly tied to it.  

                The predatory biomass of the chinook may be represented by smaller fish that are removed from the system a year or two prior to the past.  This may require the alteration of the models used to project alewife consumption and sustainable stocking target numbers for these fish.

               Some people have argued that the net pens are to blame for the decline in the size of the salmon due to them getting a head start and maturing faster, but this doe not make sense.  If this was the case and half of the salmon were raised in net pens, then we would still have roughly half of the numbers of large chinooks being caught in the lake each year relative to the number prior to the net pen introduction, and we do not.  It is a selecting agent at the point of maturity that is shifting the allele frequency of the kings.

 

In conclusion:

 

                The study on Atlantic salmon may reveal an answer to a lot of the trends in the Lake Ontario fishery concerning the chinook salmon over the past three decades.  It may also show where the fishery is heading.  If there is a follow-up study to this on the lake or if data that has been collected at the hatchery and through the creel census supports this occurring in Lake Ontario, work will need to be done to correct many of the models used today that were developed around the “old” chinook.  In addition a re-education of the anglers and the expectations of the angling community may need to occur.  There may be numbers of large salmon from time to time, but it may be linked to less than ideal conditions not allowing the salmon to mature at age two as they would if they were healthy.  The greatest indicator of the overall health of the salmon may continue to be the plumpness of the 36” fish rather than the overall average size of the fish as the genetics may not allow for this to increase again.  More attention will have to be given to each year class of fish since there will not be a noticeable buffer class to make up for a failed year class as there has been in the past.

For Review;

 

Phil Lucason

[GAMBLER]

It completely makes sense.  The Garnaska has a natural reproducing population of kings and the tributary is closed to fishing for the majority of the spawn.  This would allow the biggest to reproduce without being yanked out before being able to spawn.  A lot of the big kings caught on the lake are caught on the North shore. Hmmm.   If the lake is truly managed for the lake and we depend on natural reproduction more and more, how come kings are allowed to be yanked off their spawning beds and roped on South Shore tributaries that support natural reproduction?  I know, I know, the Salmon River salmon run supports the local economy.  But managing for the lake should mean managing for the lake........

[HB2]

5 hours ago, GAMBLER said:

It completely makes sense.  The Garnaska has a natural reproducing population of kings and the tributary is closed to fishing for the majority of the spawn.  This would allow the biggest to reproduce without being yanked out before being able to spawn.  A lot of the big kings caught on the lake are caught on the North shore. Hmmm.   If the lake is truly managed for the lake and we depend on natural reproduction more and more, how come kings are allowed to be yanked off their spawning beds and roped on South Shore tributaries that support natural reproduction?  I know, I know, the Salmon River salmon run supports the local economy.  But managing for the lake should mean managing for the lake........

 

So all the tournament anglers catching boxes full of the biggest salmon every weekend has nothing to do with this ? 

[chinook35]

40 minutes ago, HB2 said:

 

So all the tournament anglers catching boxes full of the biggest salmon every weekend has nothing to do with this ? 

 

40 minutes ago, HB2 said:

 

So all the tournament anglers catching boxes full of the biggest salmon every weekend has nothing to do with this ? 

😝 The Pacific Salmon program started in the late 1970’s to help reduce the alewife ( mooneye) population in Lake Ontario. The fishery  that developed was a huge bonus 

It was always a put and take program

the fish that were introduced in the 70’s were first generation salmonids that spent their adult life at sea and returned to their streams that hatched them to spawn 

Over the years these landlocked fish have changed genetically. When I first started fishing Lake O in the late 70’s the hot lure was a luhr Jensen dodger and a squid ( hoochie) 

I asked a biologist why they would hit a squid , which there are none of , in Lake O   He explained the salmon had a residual memorie of what was good to eat. Now hoochies   are very seldom  used   I have tried them several times in the recent past with no takers 

I guess what Im trying to say is , the fish have evolved and the only way to get back to the giants we used to catch is to introduce new pacific salmon stocks in their first generation 

[GAMBLER]

1 hour ago, HB2 said:

 

So all the tournament anglers catching boxes full of the biggest salmon every weekend has nothing to do with this ? 

Some but, they are managed for the lake.  Without coolers being filled, alewife populations wouldn't be kept in check.  The stocking numbers are set expecting a certain amount being taken out of the system.  The salmon creel limit is the same in the lake as it is in the river at 3.  They are spread out in TRILLIONS of gallons of water and they make a choice to eat a lure on the lake.  They aren't stuffed into shallow narrow runs and easy pickings for lifters and snaggers,,,,,  Low water years, the biggest kings get ripped out long before hitting the upper parts of the Salmon River.  A true 4 year old king has a better chance getting roped on a tributary than it has being put in a cooler on the lake (unless it spawns on the Garnaska).  My point is, they are managed for the lake.  IF that is true, manage them for the lake.  Steelhead are managed for the tribs and restrictions were put on the creel limit and minimum size in the lake.  Do we have size and creel restrictions for kings on the tributary with the biggest production of wild fish in NY?  Should we?  If we depend on natural reproduction to keep the salmon fishery managed for the lake going, we should.  If it's a trib that doesn't support natural reproduction ie Genessee River, Sandy, Oak Orchard,ect, go ahead and leave it at 3.  

[Gator]

1 hour ago, GAMBLER said:

Some but, they are managed for the lake.  Without coolers being filled, alewife populations wouldn't be kept in check.  The stocking numbers are set expecting a certain amount being taken out of the system.  The salmon creel limit is the same in the lake as it is in the river at 3.  They are spread out in TRILLIONS of gallons of water and they make a choice to eat a lure on the lake.  They aren't stuffed into shallow narrow runs and easy pickings for lifters and snaggers,,,,,  Low water years, the biggest kings get ripped out long before hitting the upper parts of the Salmon River.  A true 4 year old king has a better chance getting roped on a tributary than it has being put in a cooler on the lake (unless it spawns on the Garnaska).  My point is, they are managed for the lake.  IF that is true, manage them for the lake.  Steelhead are managed for the tribs and restrictions were put on the creel limit and minimum size in the lake.  Do we have size and creel restrictions for kings on the tributary with the biggest production of wild fish in NY?  Should we?  If we depend on natural reproduction to keep the salmon fishery managed for the lake going, we should.  If it's a trib that doesn't support natural reproduction ie Genessee River, Sandy, Oak Orchard,ect, go ahead and leave it at 3.  

 

If the BS allele ("Big Spawner") is becoming less prevalent over time, then there must be some form of negative selection or alternatively positive selection for earlier maturation. Which equates to either spawning success, developmental advantages, or survival. I do believe that smaller fish have a better chance of running the gauntlet, but then again, those boxes of big kings on the lake can't help either. Do the Salmon River Hatchery personnel keep track of the size of the fish that they collect from? Personally, we keep smaller fish in the 10-15 lb range because they smoke better, but Facebook is rampant with coolers of big kings. However, all things being equal, I'm not sure that the lake harvest is disproportionately impacting the size distribution in a way that will skew spawning.

 

It's complicated. And undoubtedly a combination of genetics, adaptation, and environmental factors. But it certainly seems as if the move from stocking to natural reproduction has paralleled the size shift.

 

It's tough to propose what is certain to be an unpopular strategy without solid evidence supporting its efficacy.

[LongLine]

I agree the issue is a matter of genetics and evolution. 

 

Overfishing is plausible if fishers used trawling nets, but with rod/reel and a 3 bag limit...no way!  Especially with the decline in boat trips over the last 15 years. Given a catch rate of 3.5 per trip and the number of fish out there, overfishing today is a very minimal probability. 

 

Selective harvesting is interesting...if anyone has a fish finder that can distinguish between a 25 Lb'r and a 30 Lb'r please send me make/model so I can go buy one!  () We go deeper when encountering shakers, but we don't go to the 20 line for 25 Lb'rs and then 20.5 line for 30 Lb'rs.  If any charter has a hard & fast rule that his clients only keep fish over 25 Lbs, I'll be the first to write a great yelp review for him.  A 25 Lb'r will likely hit a Magnum or meat rig just as a 30 Lb'r will.  Any LOC guy that catches a 30 Lb'r and doesn't immediately race in for the weigh station is a dam fool!

 

 Likewise, any "lip-ripper" that claims he can distinguish between a moving 25 Lb'r and a 30 Lb'r in a stream, given refraction of light, turbidity and distance to fish, is probably off his meds.

 

Yes, the Kings have been trending smaller.  LOC records and Lake Ontario Annual reports have documented it.  Here's all the top LOC finishers for a number of years. (winner plus top 20)  

 

Big fish generally produce big offspring. One item briefly mentioned so far is Nat Repro Kings which comprise a substantial proportion of the fish out there. (currently over 60% and has been documented since the 90's) For those that don't remember the adipose clipping trailer study by a credible LO biologist:

 

 

("more like to mature at age-2") Naturals are also slightly smaller at age-3.  Here's the full report:

https://experts.esf.edu/esploro/outputs/doctoral/Natural-Reproduction-Survival-Homing-and-Straying/99885320304826

 

Both Naturals and Stocked Kings spawn in the SR.  With microscopic/laboratory analysis, one can tell the difference between the two (see full report) but I'm fairly certain the "egg takers" don't differentiate.  So, the question is what will the resultant hybrid offspring be if a stocked female eggs are fertilized with a Naturals milt?  Or what if both are Naturals? 

 

What if what we're seeing every year is a greater number of Naturals weighed in or more and more 6-7-8th generation hybrids? 

 

I think it'd be a great study for some grad student to look at the LOC place finishers to see if Natural or stocked. 
 

[HB2]

The downward trend started showing up about 25 years ago 

Right around the time a lot of tournaments started showing up and it seems there are more and more each year . With more and more seasoned anglers with well equipped boats . And these anglers target and keep the biggest fish . They harvest a lot , no question . And this has no affect on the gene pool ? At least somewhat ? 

 

Back in the day Michigan crickets were the bait of choice and that didn't affect size , in fact they got bigger for a while . 

 

 

I agree with Gator , probably a complex problem and we may never truly know why . But the fishing is great , and I'm happy for that . 

I have my theories but they are just that , theories . 

[GAMBLER]

1 hour ago, HB2 said:

The downward trend started showing up about 25 years ago 

Right around the time a lot of tournaments started showing up and it seems there are more and more each year . With more and more seasoned anglers with well equipped boats . And these anglers target and keep the biggest fish . They harvest a lot , no question . And this has no affect on the gene pool ? At least somewhat ? 

 

Back in the day Michigan crickets were the bait of choice and that didn't affect size , in fact they got bigger for a while . 

 

 

I agree with Gator , probably a complex problem and we may never truly know why . But the fishing is great , and I'm happy for that . 

I have my theories but they are just that , theories . 

There have been tournaments before the issue started.  There was more pressure on the king population in the 80's.   I wonder when the survival rate of naturally reproduced kings started to increase?  I'd be willing to bet it is around the time size started to decline.